The comment wasn't that opposition to welfare programs was solely caused by racism, just that it was one motivation. It's easier to defend a racist policy if racism is never explicitly brought up, the policy just has a disparate impact along racial lines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater#%22Southern_strate...

>The comment wasn't that opposition to welfare programs was solely caused by racism, just that it was one motivation

Ok so how would one oppose welfare programs and not be labeled racist? Do you believe there are no individuals taking advantage of the welfare system and that pointing out anyone who is would be racist?

I think that the above was comment abour welfare queen discussion that actually happened in USA around 1980 in presidential campaign.

My point was to try and get the poster to tell us how we can be critical of welfare programs without being racist. Since they never answered I'm going to assume, like most people with this stance, they think ANY criticism against it is racism and no discussion should happen. Assuming that every black single woman is a 'welfare queen' would be racist but the idea that there are individuals who take advantage of the system is not, especially since it's true. Focusing on a term that some find offensive seems like a waste of time and a distraction from real discussion on the issue.

Opposition to welfare programs happens in countries without race related problems as well. How do you distinguish between such opposition if you're going along with "that affects particular race more that's why they oppose it" argument. You can paint everyone to be racist this way.

Opposition to welfare is not racist per se. But it has been used by politicians and pundits in the US as a dog whistle to drive a racial wedge between white and Black Americans. It's not explicit, and that's the point [0].

0. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwa...

Yeah, it has been used but the way the argument goes it's impossible to form an argument against a welfare program without being painted a racist.

What I mean is that a line of reasoning so often used these days: "this affects race X more therefore it's racist/racially motivated" is just incorrect thinking.

Have you heard of intergenerational wealth, which is one of the issues described in the OP article? Then, have you further heard of redlining, Jim Crow, slavery, sharecropping, lynchings, hiring discrimination, justice system discrimination, police discrimination, urban ghettoization, locally-funded school districts based on local property taxes, code switching speech, cultural discrimination on styles of dress and hair, and the digital divide?

Would you like to take any guesses of any of those issues not being involved in poor members of minority groups remaining poor?

What does that have to do with welfare being a good idea? You're straw-manning.

There are no straw men here and it's insulting that you'd accuse a stranger acting in good faith of that.

It's a direct answer to "Also, please explain why impoverished minority communities have not vastly improved regardless of the constantly increasing money tossed into welfare programs."

Food assistance, subsidized housing, and monthly cash payments are only really short-term stabilizing tools. For that they can be useful, but those systems are not designed or equipped to vastly improve the wealth and self-reliance of impoverished communities.

The key word in "impoverished minority communities" is "communities". Good schools, grocery stores, street maintenance, good transit, good jobs within driving distance, fair lending (and honestly lending practices designed to fix the damage of generations of unfair lending), vocational training, job placement assistance, enforcement of building codes on landlord-owned buildings, stable utility infrastructure including broadband Internet, and other things stable, wealthier communities take for granted are necessary to have a stable, flourishing community population.